Practice and Procedure

Fraud on court

— Decision obtained by — Effect — Such decision liable to be set aside — Basic principle is that party who secured a decision by fraud cannot be allowed to enjoy its fruits, (2006) 7 SCC 416-A

Practice and Procedure

Fraud on court

— Meaning — Obtaining relief from court by deliberately suppressing a fact which was fundamental to entitlement of relief sought and founding the claim on the basis of a non-existent fact, amounts to practising fraud on court — Such fraud vitiates the decision/order of the court — But securing decision/order merely on perjured evidence does not amount to fraud on court — Appellant obtained order of Forest Tribunal under S. 3(3) of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 exempting from vesting in the State a private forest land on the basis of his stand that the land was owned and intended to be cultivated by him and was within the ceiling limit, although he had already disposed of the land to others and thus had neither title nor possession of the land which were essential requisites for invocation of S. 3(3) — Held, appellant played fraud on the Tribunal, (2006) 7 SCC 416-B

Constitution of India

— Arts. 215, 226 and 136 — Fraud on court — Remedy — When a decision is vitiated by fraud, proper course would be to approach the court which had rendered the decision for redressal — In this case order/decision had been procured by appellant from a Forest Tribunal by fraud and High Court having dismissed the appeal filed under the Act by the State at the admission stage, the order/decision of the Tribunal had merged with the order/decision of High Court and as such governing decision was that of the High Court — When a statutory review petition was filed before the Tribunal, it was dismissed on ground that the order sought to be reviewed had merged with the judgment of High Court — When a petition filed before High Court for review of its decision in appeal, it was dismissed on ground of delay (of 8 years) — This order of dismissal was again sought to be reviewed — Other review petitions also filed including one to review of High Court's order dismissing appeal against the Tribunal's order — Besides a body of citizens filed a writ petition inter alia praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State not to assign, release or surrender the forest land to appellant — Held, in such situation, High Court could either quash the decision/order of the Tribunal or set aside its own order/decision passed in appeal and vacate the order of the Tribunal by allowing the appeal or it could exercise its jurisdiction as a Court of record under Art. 215 to set aside the decision obtained by fraud — In the present case, High Court having opted to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 215, Supreme Court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 136 sought to be invoked by appellant — This approach of High Court cannot be thwarted on pleas that second review was not maintainable or High Court could not ignore its earlier orders dismissing the appeals at the admission stage or on ground of delay, (2006) 7 SCC 416-C